Liberalism at work in Illinois

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

More mindless bullsh**t from Richius. What does this have to do with liberalism? NOTHING. Are you now going to make a post blaming liberals if your car doesn't start in the morning? Quite blaming the other ideology for everything wrong in the world, even bandit and jfern don't do that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.

So if liberals advocate something that is stupid, the liberal philosophy shouldn't be blamed, even if it's part and parcel of the liberal philosophy?  That makes no sense to me.  You certainly wouldn't say the same thing about conservatives and conservative policies.  It seems that every time you get backed into a corner on a particularly stupid aspect of what the liberal base is pushing, you try to declare their ideology irrelevant.  No dice.

Except I haven't seen any evidence that it's liberals pushing for this. And until any liberal defends it on this thread I'll consider it irrelevant. You also must realize that even if one group of liberals supports something, another most certainly does not, true with conservatives as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You have even admitted therefore that conservatism is just as much to blame therefore this post is asinine. One could make the same thing and just say "conservatism at work".

Whatever the case, I think radical feminism is a load of idiocy, and I have never met anyone who supports it.

Aside from that, Richius is using a logical fallacy he uses in just about every other thread, basically saying that if an ideology gets something wrong, it's therefore wrong about everything. This is the third "Liberalism at work" threads he made. I'll ignore the first one because it had absolutely nothing to do with politics at all, it was about a bad plea bargain. The second one was about unsupervised prison furloughs. I don't support such furloughs so I say I am not to blame for it in any way. However I'm sure even if you found a liberal who did, it would not be a high priority for them, and almost certain almost every liberal would be willing to sacrifice unsupervised prison furloughs for say, a more progressive tax rate.

In this case even if we assume that the whole radical feminism nonsense plays a large part and ignore the equally idiotic conservatism taken to the extreme, it still deals with only a small part of a sub-ideology which makes up a small portion of liberals. Most radical feminists care much more about abortion on demand.

Richius's constant use of logical fallacies is why people call him a troll. nomorelies once posted an article about the Bush administration weakening environmental regulations and basically started screaming that conservatives supported pollution. Everyone called him a troll and an idiot for it. They were correct. However what he did is no different than what Richius is doing now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.

What type of point of no return? And for how much longer can the guy go? He just should be able to stay there and keep going against her will? If she's screaming for the guy to stop, I think any decent guy would stop.

You're being quite paranoid and ridiciulous. Radical feminism is almost dead in fact, it just so happens to have a few old ones stuck around that keep making a lot of noise and getting lots of attention. Most of the latest generation of feminists are sex-positive or third wave. I'd be much more scared of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, since they are much more connected to the GOP, than any radical feminist is to the Democrats.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

well yeah they can't expect the guy to pull out instantly, but it shouldn't take more than a few seconds and if he goes on for a couple minutes or longer against her will it'd be tough to say it's not rape.

It doesn't really affect me because I usually go girl-on-top.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not saying there's no potential for abuse or anything, I just want to know if he thinks it's OK then for a guy to keep going a significant amount of time after she said stop. He keeps dodging that question.